Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/gravitud/public_html/ssx_forum/includes/arcade/functions_arcade.php on line 626The Gravitude Bar • View topic - Where do you fall on the political compass?

I wonder what political landscape we have here on Merqury City! I will vote with my result after the first differing vote to remain anonymous for now and avoid influencing other members' decision whether to engage or not.

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi All:

I don't fall under any of the categories above, as I am registered as an Independent. Politically, I support non-theonomic Calvinist conservatism, whereas, economically, I am liberal (i.e., in favor of socialism).

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:07 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:16 am

Rank: Master

Location: York, United Kingdom

PSN: Kubi-ssx

That's quite interesting, because you have talked about constitutions in the past on this board. Surely, you would not invoke religion in your political views in favour of a secular state, with separation if church and state?

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi Kubi:

I apologize for the confusion.

My political and economic views are interesting because, while I am a staunch political conservative, I am also, economically speaking, an anti-capitalist, and believe that a growing number of people today care more about the capital they receive than fellow humans. Extensive worship of money is, of course, anti-Biblical, and the Puritan William Tyndale's book, On Wicked Mammon, addresses the spiritual perils of extreme adoration for material wealth.

Now, on to your second point: I think theonomy, which instructs its followers to construct a contemporary government based on the Mosaic Civil Code, is a mistake. The raison d' etre this is so entails the fact that Jesus Christ fulfilled the strict demands of the penal code for the Law when he died on the cross. Today, Christians must only accept the general equity of the Mosaic Law. For example, when the Bible says that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" in the Old Testament, that command, prior to Christ's Resurrection, involved executing sorcerers. In light of the New Testament, though, this means that Christians ought to warn wizards that they will face divine retribution (i.e., eternal fiery torture in Hell) if they do not repent of all their iniquities. It is then up to the offender to decide whether or not to heed the warning issued. However, the message is a spiritual one, and not a political one. In fact, the non-theonomic principle I have outlined above is called general equity, and is found in the Westminster Confession.

Recently, the movie God's Not Dead 2 brought to light an interesting fact about the separation of Church and State: it was never intended to be analyzed in such a way to exclude the mention of religion in school. In fact, the teleological aim behind the idea, as the film rightly points out, involves making sure that government does not persecute individuals because they do not follow a specific religion. In England, for example, Catholic monarchs often oppressed those whose refused to honor Catholicism, and, unfortunately, the same can be said about Protestantism. Although English Puritans were correct in migrating to the pre-American colonies to practice their own worship, they made the mistake of establishing Puritan-only areas, and persecuting dissenters, resulting in the ironic honoring or pushing a state-mandated belief, which seems somewhat disingenuous with their attempt to abolish the hitherto described system. This is clearly seen when Connecticut governor John Winthrop banishes Anne Hutchinson from Connecticut for her differing convictions. It is, therefore, my opinion the Christian teachers have every right to explain share to faith with other students, and that coaches have the right to pray before school American football games, provided that such measures do not force a particular conviction on others, as would be the case if teachers flunked students into accepting a specific creed or coaches kicked players off an American football team for not participating in school prayer. The ACLU might dislike any religious activity that takes place in a school setting, but, remember, these are the same group of hypocrites who supported eliminating celebration of the Christmas Holidays from the schools while, simultaneously, pushing the celebration of Muslim Holidays in the same school systems, and, by doing so, contradict themselves.

By the same token, I believe that people all faiths have the Constitutional right to witness to others, either in school or outside of it, leaving it to the addressed to decide whether to accept or reject a particular creed. So, in sum, I think that 1) government ought not to adopt theonomic standards in the United States, as some Calvinists did not agree with theonomy, and 2) government should not interfere with school teachers discussing the Lord and Savior, or prayers that coaches head during American football games, so long as it is not a blatant attempt to persecute non-Christians, but is an exercise in hope and education. For far too long, the PC culture, where someone must curtail an activity is quashed whenever a person is offended, and is also a hypocritical measure which is used to support political extreme liberalism, rather than political conservatism or even other moderate views to the right or radicalism. In my opinion, PC is disastrous, and the United States ought to return to an environment where conservatives and liberals can speak intelligently about their beliefs, as you do Kubi, without threatening to sue whenever a person is offended.

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:27 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:16 am

Rank: Master

Location: York, United Kingdom

PSN: Kubi-ssx

As far as I know, nobody is attempting to restrict students' rights to pray in schools, even in an organised fashion. The point is to stop teachers from praying with their students as a class, therefore imposing one religion on them and excluding students with different beliefs. Furthermore, it stops teachers form teaching a church's doctrine as fact, rather than something that some people believe. Schools exist to teach students facts, not opinions that the school sees as correct.

I'm not sure how you jumped from a discussion about religion and the constitution to PC culture in academia, but I absolutely agree that the left frequently silences dissenting opinions in the name of political correctness, creating an echo chamber for students, which is wrong. However, I can't help but point out that churches often do the same with people who choose to support rights of people with different sexualities and gender identities.

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:24 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi Kubi:

Let me address you first point: teachers leading prayer in class. In my opinion, as long as no student objects to the action taking place, then I guess it's alright. However, when a student tells an instructor that he or she is of a differing faith or metaphysical persuasion, then, from that standpoint, the teacher will be intimidating individuals if he or she continues to lead prayer after, to cite an instance, an atheist informs an instructor that he or she is uncomfortable with it. The ACLU, in my opinion, brings frivolous lawsuits in situations which can be handled by common agreement and reason, and, it should be duly noted, that they often sue on behalf of certain groups, serving as ventriloquist to popularize faddish ethical vantage points, instead of examining the skeletal system on which such points are based, and making effective and intelligent arguments as a result. While I do not hate the ACLU, I believe that they are insincere about liberal causes, and would take immediate steps to remove a scholar from school who says that Ayatollah is cuckoo, but, quite contrarily, shy away from attacking offenders of Christianity who present God in a tyrannical manner. In other words, many members of the groups are hypocrites, and will only act in a liberal fashion when they project the outcome to be in concurrence with the Zeitgeist of a particular era.

Also, not all Christian groups hate gays and lesbians. I believe that, should the two groups I mentioned, continue to sin and reject the Spirit of God that the result will bring about their everlasting torture in Hell, but that is a spiritual consideration, not a political one. By the way, some of my close companions are gays and lesbians and, while our theological convictions regarding the moral issue of homosexuality differ, we can carry on intelligent discussions about this very issue with each other. The Bible does not support oppressing sinners; rather, it teaches that the whole world is imperfect. In the New Testament, for example, the Pharisees were about to stone a woman to death for adultery. Jesus tells the Pharisees that "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone," but then urges the same female, for her own moral well-being, to discontinue her vice. This is same attitude I hold towards homosexuals: I believe that their conduct carries grave consequences in the hereafter, which I speak of in an open an earnest manner, but, on the same token, I would be the first to testify against a person who physically harms a gay or bisexual person in the name of Christianity. And, while Calvinist sects do not permit gays and lesbians to join their Church, many will engage them in debates, sometimes even within the confines of a Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian Church. Moreover, all Christian groups do not disallow openly gay and lesbian members to join their Church, as is the case with the Episcopal Church, who have recently been punished by the "Father Church" (i.e., the Anglican Church) in the following way: the Anglicans are disassociating themselves with the Episcopalians on a five-year basis. If trends continue, though, I think that Episcopalians will eventually break with Anglicans, in order to maintain their policy of admitting gays and lesbians into their Church.

Remember, too, that unlike public schools, private schools do not receive government funding, and so are under no conditions to "accept" different belief systems, though they might choose to do so. The same holds true for religious establishments, even though certain Christian sects will admit homosexuals into their faith. That raises a bigger question, though: why do certain people screaming "Islamophobia" when they advocate killing homosexuals, and why, inversely, do conservative Christians, many who might have gay and lesbian companions, get blamed for pointing out that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Whereas the Christian, in the case cited above, only raises a moral objection to a certain lifestyle, the Muslim threatens the practitioners of such behavior, yet, unfortunately, the Christian only gets blamed for being prejudiced.

In the end, American society is bombarded with a plethora of varying metaphysical viewpoints but, rather than subjecting it to what I will call the Kubi-treatment, or intelligent scholastic debates where the pros and cons of both theistic and non-theistic systems are analyzed in a careful and thoughtful manner, schools refuse to allow such matter to discussed, lest someone become offended. The result is that such issues are left as fodder for political primaries, where philosophical worldviews are often spoken of in a purposely distorted manner, with the intention of gaining votes, instead of in an open and earnest fashion, thereby allowing voters to deliberate whether or not a belief system is cemented in logic.

Take care, My Friend!

Best Wishes, and thanks for your latest input regarding the topic at hand!QuotidianPerfection

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:06 am

Rank: Master

Location: Inside Kaori

PSN: jonipooon

Isn't that test already biased from the start? Since they have questions like "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

That statement alone makes it sound like globalisation could be something bad, and that corporations are "evil".

_________________Also known as the guy that always pisses gondee off with his huge avatars.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi Jonipoon and Kubi:

Actually, let's evaluate Jonipoon's statements in analytical detail.

1. Isn't that test biased from the start? According to Christian apologist and epistemologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, neutrality is mythical. Everyone, according to Dr. Bahnsen, takes certain presuppositions for granted when reason (e.g.,, the laws of logic).

2. The mentioning of that economic globalization is inevitable commits the existential fallacy, as, while my latest response suggest that it is a possibility, it never makes the bold declaration that it constitutes a necessity. Let me delve deeper into why it is not so. Economics is based on math and science, and makes predictions which can be falsified. According to Sir Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, the falsification technique proceeds in the following way:

1. (X)[Tx --> (Px --> Ox)] / (3x)(~T)2. (3x)(Px ^ ~Ox)

The falsification theory, while seemingly complex, is used all the time when new SSX3 WRs in Race Times are set. The way it works is that, a player will advance a universal (X) theory (Tx) which points to (-->) an argument that predicts (Px) a certain time will not be broken (Ox). For some of the time (3x), the prediction that a certain time will not be broken will hold up (Px ^ ~Ox), and, while such observable data will not the claimant's argument as universally binding, it will prove competent to remain as a theory for the time being. When that time is broken on at least one occasion (3x)(Px ^ Ox), such a theory is no longer universally binding (3x)(~Tx). Nevertheless, as Dr. John Tamayao, a Filipino professor, pointed out in an excellent online lecture on Sir Karl, the theory of falsifiability does not necessary rule out God as meaningless, as his theory of scientific data applies to only materialistic or hypothesized materialistic data which can be tested either empirically or theoretically. Hence, to say that something which falls under the domain of science and math, such as economic globalization, will, based on current predictions, come to fruition is similar to saying that, in MacBeth, the Witches' prophecy that Banquo's descendants will become Kings is inevitable just because the first four prophecies they made about the overambitious soldier came to fruition. At the heart of your problem, lies Francis Bacon's mistake of equating the truth of past predictions according to the truth of future ones. In the song "Keepin' Your Head Up," Tupac Shakur complains that America has never seen a black president, which might hope for this historic wish seem inevitable. Nevertheless, David Hume says that causes are always subject to refution, and the premise that if there is a president, then he will not be black can be refuted one a black President takes office, which transpired in the United States when Barrack Obama took his seat in the White House.

3. I never talked about who corporations should serve in my last response, so contextualizing it in that manner is clealy a straw man fallacy.

4. Finally, the comment is made that I equate globalization and corporations with "evil," to which I will reply that I never provided a consequent clause to my statement to make that statement feasible. While your decision to add another propositional letter and then, via material inference, convert it into a conditional statement is valid, your conclusion is unsound, as globalization and corporations could both be used to serve humanity. Let me take this further by noting that saying that either X or Y is good commits the fallacy of false alternatives, since globalization and corporations are not benevolent or malevolent in and of themselves--it is the people in charge of them who can either conduct them in a beneficial or a self-serving manner. Please note, too, that not everyone is these hitherto spoken of dual institutions might be evil, as certain people who are trying to do good for humanity might face an override by a larger hedonistic portion of the group, the top-tiered pleasure-seeking bosses in an establishment, or both. Reducing a complex institutions such as globalization and corporations to simple cliches associated with them do not do them justice.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:16 am

Rank: Master

Location: York, United Kingdom

PSN: Kubi-ssx

The point that Jonipoon and I are making is that the question contains the answer which is implicitly correct. You see, the test was about one's opinions about what the role of government should be. Since the government is supposed to serve the people by definition, it is clear that the question implies that the options are that either the government should step in to protect humanity's interests (which as I pointed out above, is the government's definitional role), or the government should not step in and allow globalisation to serve only trans-national corporations. Since the question contrasts the benefit of humanity against the benefit of corporations, it implies that they are mutually exclusive (i.e. that what benefits trans-national corporations cannot benefit humanity). Therefore, the question suggests that the correct option to pick is government intervention to prevent corporate greed, and that the other option is immoral as it is detrimental to humanity. Government intervention is usually advocated by the left wing, meaning that the question's suggested correct answer is consistent with leftist thought, giving it a left leaning bias.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi Jonipoon and Kubi:

I like this discussion--it's turning into an intellectual chess match among participants!

Let me analyze Jonipoon's and Kubi's assertion point by point.

Kubi wrote that "The point that Jonipoon and I are making is that the question contains the answer which is implicitly correct." I like that fact, here, that you place limitations on the scope, and argue what does X contextually imply in lieu of what does X mean to everyone. It should be duly noted, that, upon evidence, this thesis is contradicted by allowing for other opinions who can reread X subjectively, a proclivity which literary scholar M.H. Abrams calls "newreading" in How to Do Things with a Text. Will your "oldreading," or argument that passages out to be considered contextually, be adequate to defend against interpretive nihilism. The answer is that I don't think so. Let's investigate further to examine why.

Kubi wrote that "You see, the test was about one's opinions about what the role of government should be." The problem with this statement, though, is people have all sorts of ideas pertaining to how a government should function, which ranges from a democracy, a conception of government supported by the framers of the United States Constitution, to a malevolent dictatorship, an idea advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince.

Kubi wrote "Since the government is supposed to serve the people by definition," then adds more information, but I want to focus on the reason why the antecedent clause in the conditional statement is false. It is possible that, in some communities, that the individuals of a country are supposed to be at the government's disposal. During the times of Japanese Emperors, for example, the Emperors were worshiped like gods.

Kubi then writes the consequent clause of his statement which reasons that "it is clear that the question implies that the options are that either the government should step in to protect humanity's interests (which as I pointed out above, is the government's definitional role), or the government should not step in and allow globalisation to serve only trans-national corporations." Nevertheless, Kubi is assuming that all people value governments which are not capricious, and which will never consider accepting some globalization and transnational corporate proposals while striking down others. As a United States States citizen, I can assure him that the disjunctive syllogistic formula he uses, while valid, is exclusive, not inclusive, since citizens' interest on the two issues described above are sometimes guided by selfish wants. Hence, the options above clearly showcase a false dilemma, since such options are contingent upon what gains X or Y will receive from acting in a certain way, thereby contradicting the thesis I quoted in the beginning that the disjunctive syllogism alluded to previously must be inclusive.

Kubi wrote: "Since the question contrasts the benefit of humanity against the benefit of corporations, it implies that they are mutually exclusive (i.e. that what benefits trans-national corporations cannot benefit humanity)." The trouble here is that the term "benefit humanity" is loosely defined, and, while Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, could explain it in terms of the additional provisions the proletariat will receive in the future, Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kumpf, would epitomize those terms quite contrarily so that the strong, or white, blue-eyed Aryan race, eliminate all other races over time.

Kubi wrote: "Therefore, the question suggests that the correct option to pick is government intervention to prevent corporate greed, and that the other option is immoral as it is detrimental to humanity." If we take moral relativity as a given, though, as Christian apologist and epistemologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen once suggested, there is no reason why what is depicted is unethical, for that depends on an arbitrary set of cultural values which, as seen in liberal Sociology textbooks, might be conflicting.

Kubi wrote: "Government intervention is usually advocated by the left wing, meaning that the question's suggested correct answer is consistent with leftist thought, giving it a left leaning bias." As Sir Karl Popper notes in his Logic of Scientific Discovery, probability arguments are neither true nor false. Moreover, in a debate with physiologist Dr. Gordon Stein, Dr. Bahnsen, after listening to Dr. Stein talk about electron interaction, asks him, "Did you check all the electrons?" The same logic applies here: to be sure that the "left leaning bias" is "correct," one would have to record all the times right-wing and left-wing adherents promoted "Government intervention" in order to say definitively that one is more probable than the other.

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:28 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:20 am

Rank: Rookie

Location: Salamanca, Spain

Cool thread!

I consider myself a libertarian socialist, also called anarchist. Referred to god, I´m an atheist (some of my also anarchist friends are agnostics). In phylosphical terms, I´m really atracted to vitalism and epicureanism, I consider individuals should release from all their fears and alienating elements.

It´s a very interesting conversation the one you started here, unfortunately I can´t read it all right now!

That's mine. Doesn't really surprise me in the slightest, I know about where I'm at politically, socially and morally. Account for some amount of bias towards the left and I think it's fairly accurate as a representation of me. Wonder if I'm going to be shifting rightwards as I get older, as so many young politically interested people do...

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:18 am Post subject: Re: Where do you fall on the political compass?

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm

Rank: Master

Location: United States

Hi All:

This is indeed an interesting discussion.

I will restate my political and economic leanings. Politically, I'm very conservative, and am actually Puritanical in my views, but I, like Reformed Baptist preacher and scholar Dr. James R. White, do not believe that America should be a theocratic nation (i.e., every Mosaic Civil Code must be observed). Economically, though, I embrace socialism, and think of capitalism as an oppressive regime whereby those privileged to wallow in wicked materialistic pursuits do so at the expense of the hard-working laborers who merely desire to be paid enough money to survive. In my model of socialism, the goal is to elevate the quality of life to the highest level possible for everybody without affluent individuals using the common workers as parasites to support their lavish Malibu vacations, exorbitant monthly Caribbean cruises, ad infinitum. On the other hand, if everybody could live like a Hollywood star (u.e., economically speaking) without impeding on the quality of life of one another, I would not dissent to that. Adam Smith's capitalism tends to make some princes, while relegating others to the role of paupers, which I find quite problematic.

My criticism of full-blown socialism, though, is that it also carries with it hard-core atheistic metaphysical core convictions, which, in turn, lead to moral relativism, a metaphysical beliefs which disgusts me. If moral relativism constitutes verity, then why, as Christian apologist, theologian, and analytic philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig points out, is rape wrong, especially when, as I will add, ISIS practices and even flaunts this sort of behavior? Under ethical relativism, as Dr. Craig convincingly argues, there are no absolutes, and, therefore, such behavior is deplorable in the eyes of many United States citizens, but an admirable act among ISIS members who employ it to remind females of their inferior status among men. Furthermore, as Dr. James R. White notes in a debate with American atheist president Mr. David Silverman, rape can possibly, in a strict Darwinian sense, be beneficial to humankind for providing the human race with the greatest offspring possible--but, as I observed, only at the expense at ignoring the female's will. If moral relativism is true, then why, inquires Dr. Craig again, can any act be considered moral or immoral in an amoral vacuum. Morality can only be considered in absolute terms if universal absolutes are existent?

This does not mean, though, that I believe in ethnocentrism, which is quite different than moral contingency. Let me provide an example. Suppose English and Spanish Calvinist missionaries meet with Fijian and Tongan Calvinist missionaries for the first time in the respective islands of Fiji and Tonga. The well-meaning European missionaries, upon seeing Fijian and Tongan dress for the first time, demand that the men cease and desist wearing skirts to church on a daily basis since those articles of clothing belong to women "according" to Deuteronomy. Accidentally, the Europeans have assumed that their men rarely, if ever, wear skirts, the Polynesian men must be held to the same standard. However, the logically fallacy here is that the Europeans are reading their culture into the words of Deuteronomy. In some Polynesian lands, the skirts of the men are different from that of the women, whether the differentiation be expressed in the variation of materials used, and / or its form (i.e., how it is fastened). The idea of the Deuteronomy passage paraphrased above is allow people to discern males from females. Yes, some cultures believe that to demarcate males from female, men should put on an upside down, V-shape garment where, after the crotch, the material used covers both legs, whereas women ought to don material which seems to be gathered from a right-side up cone cut in half, which appears to be semi-triangular in form, and drops from the waist, widening to a certain point at the legs, where the hem stops, and encircles, but does not enclose singularly, both legs. I can go on, but the picture will become very complicated from an analytical perspective. The point, though, is this: in the situation above, one culture is telling another culture about what constitutes appropriate dress for men, but this is based on cultural bias, not Biblical exegesis! Whereas I have little tolerance for ethical contingency due to its failure, as Christian apologist, preacher, and epistemological philosopher Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen posits, to cement morals in universal absolutes, I condemn ethnocentrism as condescending, and a poor way to forge relations with other humans, since such practice causes certain individuals to aggrandize and elevate contingent cultural habits to universal laws concerning cultural practices that all cultures ought or ought not follow. This, of course, results in its offenders committing the existential fallacy. Strangely enough, those committed to moral relativism must also defend their culture in a manner which promotes ethnocentrism and, therefore, defies logic. This, too, will disintegrate into the problem outlined above.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum